summary judgment of a massive ought yen of viewers, a past logical fear of a ratings defeat and witches ease brew against in a network s own working journalists and fact checkers. we should tell you at any moment we re expecting breaking news in the form of fresh filens from dominion and fox, to lay out any arguments in the case. while we wait, for years we have turned to phrases lie inside the bubble and the echo chamber to describe that relationship between fox news and its viewers. never before has it been so plain to see from the outside. the discovery filings show that fox hosts were telling their viewers what they knew they wanted to here even when the very same fox news host communicated the truth to one another in private, which was different from what they were broadcasting. dominion s case may very well wrest on their ability to get a jury to understand that distinction. today, though, the story goes even further in the form of something rare. a highly visible i
a news organization, a news organization that is the number one money maker for them, is saying fire the fact checker. i mean, that s startling in the united states of america. i know in my state, when i have encounters with people who are totally taken in by what trump did, whenever i calmly try to get them to a place of agreement on something that is plain as the note on my face, you know what they say? fake news. face news. that is the two-word response to anything that is presented to this hardened group of people that fox depends on to make a lot of money. so, you know, fox roger ailes said we re going to wander off
this is buckle up, everybody. rupert testified, quote, the man is on every night, he pays us a lot of money. at first you think it s comic and then you get bored and irritated. something redact. rupert murdoch confirmed that he could tell fox news network to stop running mike lindell s advertisements, quote, but i m not about to. and when asked why fox continued to give a platform to lindell who continues to this day to spout lies about dominion, rupert murdoch agreed that, quote, it is not a red or blue, it is green. lindell brought and brings fox a lot of green. he also predictably brought the same lies about dominion to fox s viewers that had been peddled on fox s alternate reality machine for months. glenn. your thoughts. nicolle, can i borrow a phrase that you used before the break with peter when you talked about how he used to investigate
large, that lots of factions of the republican party, even the factions that some people consider to be more moderate and less embracing, at least full-on embracing of a lot of the conspiracy theories, that have gripped a large chunk of the republican base, all of these findings are coming out, they re very interesting time as well. when tucker carlson sort of grip on the house gop conference and sort of republican policy making has also become increasingly clear, speaker kevin mccarthy gave tucker carlson access to the trove, the treasure chest of surveillance footage from january 6th, 2021, the attack on the capitol, much to the dismay and worry of people who worked on the january 6th committee and security experts across the board who fear that tucker s going to misuse and misrepresent a lot of this footage in order
but the court of appeals as glenn referred to it had the opinion, that was released friday, actually came out in december, and there was a hearing last week and two of the three members of the court were saying hmm, maybe howell is a little too broad to say almost any informal conversation with any third party doesn t get speech or debate protection. so the concrete risk now in the overall refrain of delay is that the court of appeals takes a little bit of time to figure out what should be the right standard, then remands it and we take many months to get to the point we already know that the courts have to come to, namely, when mike pence is talking with trump or when scott perry is plotting the overthrow of the department of justice that is not speech or debate. but the courts and here the court of appeals is being careful to articulate a line that you can draw in the future. and that is the actual concrete risk that this will take a lot